Gerhard Seel

Es gibt zwei Versionen von Naturalismus in der Ethik: Der erste (Praktischer Naturalismus I) behauptet, daß jeder praktische Satz (der eine Norm oder ein Werturteil ausdrückt) äquivalent zu einem deskriptiven Satz ist. Der zweite (Praktischer Naturalismus II) sagt, daß die Gültigkeit von praktischen Sätzen ausschließlich von kontingenten empirischen Tatsachen abhängt. Um scharf zwischen diesen beiden Versionen zu unterscheiden, wird der Begriff der praktischen Gültigkeit eingeführt und in einer Form definiert, die sich radikal von Tarskis Konvention T unterscheidet. Die erste Version des Naturalismus wird generell als durch die Argumente von Moore und Hare widerlegt angesehen. Die zweite Spielart wurde bislang nicht widerlegt. Es wird versucht zu zeigen, daß der Praktische Naturalismus II, wenn er als radikaler Naturalismus formuliert wird, einen circulus vitiosus oder infiniten Regreß impliziert. Der einzige Weg, dies zu verhindern ist, zumindest ein praktisches Prinzip zuzulassen, dessen GüUigkeit nicht von kontingenten Tatsachen abhängt. Auf diese Weise hängt der Naturalismus in der Ethik von wenigstens einem transzendenten Prinzip ab.

Since more than 50 years Kant scholars debate the question whether the Law of Right as introduced in the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant can be justified by the Categorical Imperative. On the one hand we have those who think that Kant's theory of right depends from the Categorical Imperative, on the other hand we find a growing group of scholars who deny this. However, the debate has been flawed by confusion and misunderstanding of the crucial terms and principles. Therefore, my first task will be to clarify these terms and principles by introducing distinctions that have been neglected too often. After this I try to show a) that the Law of Right can in fact be justified by using the testing method the Categorical Imperative prescribes and b) that there is no other way to justify it. Doing this I criticize in detail the new arguments adherents of the independence thesis have recently put forward.

Ever since Aristotle's famous argument about the sea-battle tomorrow, there has been intensive and controversial discussion among philosophers whether the truth of statements about the future leads to determinism. Ther e is controversy about Aristotle's own solution to the problem, as well as the views of classical and medieval commentators on Aristotle. Seel's book attempts to answer this question for the Neoplatonist Ammonius (5th-6th century AD). In so doing, he also opens up new insights into Neoplatonic thought.

As an introduction to the plenary session “Metaphysics and Aesthetics” in my article I try to describe the state of philosophy of art today and give an outlook to its future development. In the last century analytical philosophy of art has been occupied with the following four questions: What is the essence of art? What is the ontological status of works of art? What are aesthetic qualities and how do we come to know them? Have aesthetic value judgments objective validity? In the first step I explain why analytical philosophy of art failed to answer these questions and what this failure has to do with the end of art. In the second step I attempt to give a definition of art myself which allows to show that this failure and the end of art were inevitable. Finally I try—as a consequence—to define the general features of the art of the future.

Kant distinguishes two kinds of knowledge of one-self: empirical self-knowledge due to inner sense and a priori self-knowledge achieved by transcendental apperception. This conception encounters a host of problems. I try to solve these problems from the perspective of today’s phenomenology and analytical philosophy. I first introduce a new conception of inner sense and time-consciousness and argue that empirical self-knowledge must be based on the category of person, a category Kant did not list in his table of categories. I explain how the schematism of this category works. Then I introduce the a priori notion of the subject which corresponds to Kant’s ‘I think’. However, unlike Kant I hold that the notion of the subject is the notion of a being which has certain a priori capacities. Kant did not see that the term ‘I’ must be conceived of as an indexical. I argue that this indexical refers to both, the subject who does the thinking and the person who is thought. On this basis I give an answer to the question how genuine de-se knowledge is possible. I further defend—against Wittgenstein and others—the use of a private thought language. Finally, I show that what I have developed is—notwithstanding the refutation of important elements of Kant’s theory—still essentially a Kantian approach.